The End of Arthur
Just finished reading the last of the four books on Arthur by Howard Pyle: “The Story of the Grail and the passing of Arthur.” As with all books narrating this section of the Arthurian legend, it is profoundly sad. As we read about the way Lancelot behaves with the King we’re reminded of his glorious history. The first section however, deals with the achieving of the Grail itself.
Galahad achieves the Grail
The story is a continuation from the last book. Galahad is introduced as the most saintly of all knights and gets to achieve the grail along with Sir Bors and Sir Percival. However, a few things struck me. First of all, Galahad wins all his battles mainly due to the magic shield of Sir Balan which can resist all earthly weapons. With this shield, he even manages to overthrow his father Lancelot on a bridge. But where is the great worship in being able to win your battles because of a magic shield? Also, Galahad never fights with anyone before obtaining this shield and therefore his real skill is suspect.
Secondly, Galahad’s role in achieving the holy grail is no larger than that of Sir Percival or Sir Bors. Why then, is he hailed as being the primary achiever? It doesn’t seem to me that he had done anything special at all.
The section of the book goes through the motions of achieving the Grail. For me, the achievement of the Grail has never been important. It merely serves as a prelude to the next section – the demise of all that is grand in the Round Table.
The fall of Lancelot
In this section, Lancelot performs some of the most dastardly actions in the book. True, he was deceived by some knights who made it seem as if the Queen was calling him to her bower, but why did he go? They merely hooked him and made him act out what he wanted to do all along. He was obviously besotted with Guinevere and lost no time in going at night where he obviously did not belong – to her bedroom. First he gave up his wife for her, then he did this? In my mind, he deserved all the condemnation he got.
To make matters worse, he then tried to rescue her when she’s being judged by Arthur and ends up killing sir Gareth who was unarmed. This is beyond forgiveness. Sir Gareth was one of the most gentle and noble knights of the round table who loved Lancelot and was in fact, knighted by him as we saw in the previous book. He refused to plot against Lancelot and while Lancelot didn’t recognize him due to his state of mind, it just goes to show that he was so completely in the spell of Guenevere, that he didn’t’ care whom he killed.
Sir Gawaine’s anger
Along with Sir Gareth, Lancelot also killed four others of Sir Gawaine’s family making it five of his family members in toto. Sir Gawaine was willing to forgive Lancelot the death of his first three relatives since Lancelot killed them in combat and when they were armed. But he was unable to forgive Lancelot for the murder of his younger brothers Sir Gareth and Sir Gaheris. Quite understandably too.
His anger and hatred for Lancelot were tragic given his earlier love for him. He drives Arthur to war against Lancelot and keeps challenging him over and over – killing Sir Ector and seriously injuring Sir Bors, both of whom where Lancelot’s brothers. Lancelot is forced to fight and mortally wound Sir Gawaine who then curses Lancelot with his dying breath. I would expect no less from Sir Gawaine, and sympathize most strongly with him.
The passing of Arthur
Arthur more or less justifies his reputation as a “do-nothing” king as he lets Sir Gawaine dictate battle plans to him. He’s able to do little else but watch as his Knights die all around him – first in the quest for the Grail, then in the war against Lancelot, and finally, in the war against Sir Mordred who tries to usurp the throne. In spite of his weakness, you can’t help but feel sorry for him as he grieves over the demise of the Round Table and the days of chivalry. Sort of like Tolkien’s Silmarillion, the story ends with disaster following a glorious start. Truly poignant. One is reminded of the days of Sir Tristram and Sir Gareth. Of the bravery of Sir Lancelot and Sir Lamorak. Of knights errant and castles and ladies – where adventure was always to be found.
All that comes to an end with the death of Arthur. It never fails to move me. Each time I read it, it’s almost as if I wish that it would end differently somehow. But it never does…
I found Arthur to be a leader who does what he asks for; do-the-deed…And that the knights fight not for Rome/Briton but for Arthur
Yes I agree adventure all throughout; in whatever n wherever.
Did you watch the movie?
@Vinod Jose
Yes, I've seen lots of Arthur movies. However, all too often, the movies focus only on Arthur/Lancelot, whereas the real power of the legends are the adventures of the other knights like Sir Tristram and Sir Gareth, Sir Gawaine, Sir Ewaine etc..
I have only seen King Arthur, which has Keira Knightley and Clive Owen. Which are the other ones?
In your review I liked both that you weren't afraid to use some of Malory/Pyle's words-words that perfectly reflect the stories' actions and events-and didn't feel a need to modernize your language for a present-day review. I also liked and agreed with your sections on Gawain's anger and the passing of Arthur.
As to the latter, you write, "[Arthur is] able to do little else but watch as his Knights die all around him . . . . In spite of his weakness, you can’t help but feel sorry for him as he grieves over the demise of the Round Table and the days of chivalry. . . . Truly poignant. One is reminded of the days of . . . ."
I myself often puzzled over Arthur's do-nothing aspect. But if you reflect on the cumulative effect of the story, on how affecting and sad and memorable it becomes because of that very thing… I wonder, does Arthur as a literary character serve his purpose best by being portrayed that way. We all desperately want Arthur to be an active and decisive warrior-king. But if he had been more alert and taken action earlier, maybe we wouldn't benefit from the tragic and poignant ending we've been given. Maybe this is a way of transmitting a message to us, to be more alert, informed, and active in managing our destinies? Maybe in simplest terms it's an expression of the idea that if you never do anything to help yourself or manage your fate, then you've no reason to complain about how things turn out.
Other good Arthurian movies: Excalibur, 1981, dir. John Boorman; Sword of Lancelot (aka Lancelot and Guinevere, 1963).
Books you might sample on the story: Pagan King – Edison Marshall; Merlin Trilogy – Mary Stewart; Sword at Sunset – Rosemary Sutcliff. Perhaps The Winter King – Bernard Cornwell and Merlin's Ring – H. Warner Munn. But there are a million King Arthur books out there. Good luck!